Chullin 150

Chapter 150

א טעון שחיטה וחייב בזרוע והלחיים והקבה ואם מת טהור מלטמא במשא

1 it needs to be slaughtered and is subject to the [priests' dues of the] shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.1

ב א"ל רבא

2 If it died [without being slaughtered], it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it has been rendered clean by the slaughtering of its dam. 'Carrying' even without contact is one of the methods by which a carcass can convey uncleanness. It must be observed that the other method of conveying uncleanness, namely, by contact, is not excluded here.');">2

ג טעון שחיטה כמאן כר"מ ואם מת טהור מלטמא במשא כמאן כרבנן

3 Thereupon Rabbah said to him: The ruling 'it needs to be slaughtered' obviously follows R'Meir's view, whereas the ruling 'it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying' obviously follows the Rabbis' view! - But according to your argument, you could raise this same objection against R'Hiyya; for R'Hiyya taught: If a person slaughtered a trefah [animal] and found in it a nine months' living foetus, it needs to be slaughtered and is subject to the [priests' dues of the] shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.

ד וליטעמיך הא דתני רבי חייא

4 If it died, it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying.

ה השוחט את הטרפה ומצא בה בן ט' חי טעון שחיטה וחייב בזרוע והלחיים והקבה ואם מת טהור מלטמא במשא

5 The ruling 'it needs to be slaughtered', follows R'Meir's view, whereas the ruling 'it is clean and does not convey uncleanness by carrying' follows the Rabbis' view! - This is no difficulty at all, for R'Hiyya deals with the case where it was found dead [in the dam's womb].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in this case it is admitted by R. Meir that the slaughtering of the dam renders the foetus that is within it clean. Accordingly the teaching of R. Hiyya is entirely in agreement with R. Meir.');">3

ו טעון שחיטה כמאן כר"מ ואם מת טהור מלטמא במשא כרבנן

6 This is, however, a difficulty for you.4

ז הא לא קשיא ר' חייא אם כבר מצאו מת קאמר

7 - He replied: It is no difficulty for me either, for the Divin Law permits [the foetus] by [the slaughtering of any two out of] four organs.5

ח אלא לדידך קשיא

8 When R'Zera went up [to Palestine] he found R'Assi sitting and reciting the above statement [of R'Hisda].'

ט א"ל

9 Well spoken!' said R'Zera; R'Johanan also said so'.

י לדידי נמי לא קשיא ד' סימנים אכשר ביה רחמנא

10 Are we to infer that R'Simeon B'Lakish disagrees with [R'Johanan]? - Some say: He was waiting and was silent; and others say: He was drinking and was silent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not known whether Resh Lakish disagreed or not, for R. Assi had left the room whilst R. Johanan was lecturing and Resh Lakish had not as yet commenced to argue with R. Johanan either because, as some say: Resh Lakish was in the habit of allowing him to finish his remarks without interruption, or because, as others say: Resh Lakish was drinking water at the time and therefore remained silent.');">6

יא כי סליק ר' זירא אשכחיה לרב אסי דיתיב וקאמר ליה להא שמעתא

11 R'SIMEON SHEZURI SAYS, EVEN IF IT IS FIVE YEARS OLD.

יב א"ל

12 Is not his view identical with that of the first Tanna? - R'Kahana replied: The difference between them is where it stood upon the ground.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it made an impression of its parted feet on the ground'. According to the first Tanna, i.e, 'The Sages' in our Mishnah, since this animal goes about the fields like normal animals, it has been decreed by the Rabbis that it must be ritually slaughtered, for not everyone would know of the peculiarity of this animal to distinguish it from normal animals.');">7

יג יישר וכן אמר ר' יוחנן

13 R'Mesharsheya said: According to him who maintains that we must take into account the seed of the male, if an animal which had been extracted alive [out of the womb of its dam] covered a normal cow, there is no remedy for the offspring.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 69a. As the offspring from the maternal side requires to be slaughtered but not from the paternal side, it is regarded as half slaughtered, and to continue the slaughtering now is of no avail because of the long pause between the beginning of the slaughtering, i.e., at birth, and now. This state in the animal could not arise if we accept the rule that the law permits the foetus either by its own slaughtering or by the slaughtering of its dam. V. however, Tosaf. ad loc.');">8

יד מכלל דפליג עליה ר"ש בן לקיש

14 Abaye, said: All agree that if the animal which was extracted alive [out of the womb of its dam] had uncloven hoofs it is permitted.9

טו משהא הוה שהי ליה ושתיק ליה

15 Why?

טז ואיכא דאמרי

16 Because everything extraordinary people remember very well.10

יז משתא הוה שתי ושתיק ליה:

17 Others report it thus: Abaye said: All agree that if this animal with uncloven hoofs was extracted [alive out of the womb of its dam] which also was with uncloven hoofs and had been extracted [out of the womb of its dam], it is permitted.

יח רבי שמעון שזורי אומר אפילו וכו':

18 Why?

יט היינו תנא קמא

19 Because a case with two extraordinary conditions people remember very well.

כ אמר רב כהנא

20 Ze'iri said in the name of R'Hanina: The halachah is in accordance with R'Simeon Shezuri.

כא הפריס על גבי קרקע איכא בינייהו

21 Indeed R'Simeon Shezuri permitted [without slaughtering] its young and the offspring of its young and so on unto the end of all time.

כב אמר רב משרשיא

22 R'Johanan said: It alone is permitted [without slaughtering] but its young is forbidden.

כג לדברי האומר חוששין לזרע האב בן פקועה הבא על בהמה מעלייתא הולד אין לו תקנה

23 Adda B'Habu had an animal that had been extracted [alive out of the slaughtered dam's womb].

כד אמר אביי

24 It was attacked by a wolf,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it was dying (Rashi) . There was no question at all whether or not it was to be considered trefah, but only whether it was necessary to have it slaughtered or not; v. Tosaf. ad loc.');">11

כה הכל מודים בקלוט בן פקועה שמותר מאי טעמא

25 so he came to R Ashi who advised him to slaughter it [immediately].

כו כל מלתא דתמיהא מידכר דכירי לה אינשי

26 But, argued Adda, did not Ze'iri say in the name of R'Hanina that the halachah was in accordance with R'Simeon Shezuri?

כז איכא דאמרי אמר אביי

27 And indeed R'Simeon Shezuri permitted [without slaughtering] its young and the offspring of its young and so on unto the end of all time.

כח הכל מודים בקלוט בן קלוטה בן פקועה שמותר מאי טעמא

28 Moreover, even R'Johanan disagreed only regarding its young but not regarding itself!12

כט תרי תמיהי מידכר דכירי אינשי

29 - He replied, R'Johanan merely stated [what he thought to be] the view of R'Simeon Shezuri.13

ל אמר זעירי אמר ר' חנינא

30 But did not Rabin, son of R'Hanina, say in the name of Ulla on the authority of R'Hanina that the halachah was in accordance with R'Simeon of Shezuri?

לא הלכה כר"ש (בן) שזורי וכן היה רבי שמעון שזורי מתיר בבנו ובן בנו עד סוף כל הדורות

31 Moreover, is it not an established rule that wherever R'Simeon Shezuri stated his view14

לב ר' יוחנן אמר

32 the halachah is in accordance with him? - He replied: I accept the following view.

לג הוא מותר ובנו אסור

33 For R'Jonathan said: The halachah accords with R'Simeon Shezuri only in the case of 'The dangerously ill person' and in the case of 'The terumah separated from the tithe of demai produce'.

לד אדא בר חבו הוה ליה בן פקועה דנפל דובא עליה אתא לקמיה דרב אשי

34 The case about the dangerously ill person is as we have learnt: At first it was held: If a man whilst being led out in chains [to execution] said: 'Write out a bill of divorce for my wife',it was to be written and also to be delivered to her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though he gave no instructions that it was to be delivered to his wife. It is assumed that he intended it to be delivered to her but omitted to say so owing to his perturbed state of mind.');">15

לה א"ל

35 Later they laid down that the same rule applied also to one who was leaving on a sea journey or setting out with a caravan.16

לו זיל שחטיה

36 R'Simeon Shezuri says: It also applies to a man who was dangerously ill.16

לז א"ל האמר זעירי אמר ר' חנינא

37 And the case about the terumah separated from the tithe of demai produce is as we have learnt: If the terumah that had been separated from the tithe of demai produce fell back into its place,17

לח הלכה כר"ש שזורי וכן היה ר"ש שזורי מתיר בבנו ובן בנו עד סוף כל הדורות

38 R'Simeon Shezuri says, even on a weekday one need only ask him [sc. the seller] about it and eat it by his word.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In these special circumstances because of the loss involved, and since we are dealing with demai produce, i.e., produce that had been bought from an 'am ha-arez or one who was not trusted with regard to the separation of the tithes, the Rabbis permitted the owner to enquire of the seller about it, and if the seller assured him that he separated the various dues he may rely upon his word. If this occurred on the Sabbath it would certainly be permitted to rely upon the seller's word for the honour of the Sabbath, but according to R. Simeon Shezuri this is permitted even on a weekday. V. Dem. IV, 1.');">18

לט ואפילו ר' יוחנן לא קאמר אלא בנו אבל איהו לא

39 [

מ אמר ליה

מא רבי יוחנן לדברי ר"ש שזורי קאמר

מב והאמר רבין בר חנינא אמר עולא אמר רבי חנינא

מג הלכה כרבי שמעון שזורי

מד ולא עוד אלא כל מקום ששנה ר"ש שזורי במשנתנו הלכה כמותו

מה אמר ליה

מו אנא כי הא סבירא לי דאמר רבי יונתן

מז הלכה כר"ש שזורי במסוכן ובתרומת מעשר של דמאי

מח מסוכן דתנן

מט בראשונה היו אומרים היוצא בקולר ואמר

נ כתבו גט לאשתי הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו

נא חזרו לומר אף המפרש והיוצא בשיירא

נב ר"ש (בן) שזורי אומר

נג אף המסוכן

נד תרומת מעשר של דמאי דתנן

נה תרומת מעשר של דמאי שחזרה למקומה ר"ש (בן) שזורי אומר

נו אף בחול שואלו ואוכלו על פיו:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter